Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Digital Pianos - Electronic Pianos - Synths & Keyboards Does anybody else prefer the Digital . . .

Ampy, I understand your point (comparing a digital to a recorded acoustic). And I take the opposite view. For me, no digital (not even with a proper sampled piano library) can compare to a properly recorded acoustic piano. Digitals still cannot capture the range, dynamics, and air of an acoustic. So I treat a digital for what it provides: Low cost, low maintenance, and private listening. The rest can only come from an acoustic.

There are a few professionally recorded performances of a high-end (sampled) DP by established classical concert pianists on CD, which I've listened to. Here, it's not a question of inadequate amateur recording on low-resolution YouTube. The results really do sound artificial, and not just because of the looping and lack of various resonances.

Interesting. Can you describe what it is that makes it sound artificial to you?

If the recordings are done at the DP speakers then I understand completely. Otherwise I'm not sure what would be the tip-off other than the usual suspects (looping, stretching, too few layers, lack of resonance, etc.).

Mmmm. I'm not sure I can agree with that. When I ear a recorded piano there seems to be more "complexity" in the sound. Maybe it's just reverb, but it isn't usually present in digitals.

I wouldn't hurry up with your conclusions. If experienced people was able to detect the digital between the acoustics in that test that Morodienne mentioned, it surely means there are differences between acoustics and digitals.

I don't know how they were recorded, but I think it's directly from line-out to digital recorder (correct me if I'm not using the proper terminology) rather than via the speakers,because there's no extraneous noise of any sort (key action, pedal action, fingernail clicks on keys etc).

It's the way when the pianist plays louder, the volume increases but is not commensurate with more overtones (sounding 'sharper' or more brilliant) to the same extent. It's as if the volume goes up a lot more than the actual change in the tone that would be expected for this amount of increase in volume - or in other words, like the balance engineer decided to give the pianist a helping hand with his dynamics by turning the volume dial, to save him having to hit the keys much harder. The pianist probably chose the wrong kind of music to play on the DP - a Chopin Etude (Op.25/7) that goes from ppp to fff, with much of the music quite slow-moving and sustained. The other pianist played a slow, sustained Scriabin piece with fewer notes which just makes the looping all the more obvious, but even here, the dynamics also sounded odd.

I played those tracks 'blind' (mixed in with recordings of a real piano) for musician friends, and they also thought there was something artificial and odd about the sound of this piano, but they assumed that it was something the recording engineer did to the recording as I didn't tell them that a digital piano was used on a couple of the pieces.

Of course there are differences. Huge differences. But I prefer to compare a 2500 EUR digital with a 2500 EUR acoustic.

When I could have had hands on acoustics in a store, I decided for myself, that acoustics will become interesting for me only if I could at least spend 8000 EUR for it. Otherwise I better stay with a 2000 - 3000 EUR digital.

Carlos, what you say is correct. But it`s more correct for some pianos than for others. I`m really happy wi my own; to me (probably no one else) it sounded far better than any other digital in the shop. It was also one of the cheapest. It has loads of soul, man! And the second "Grand Piano" on it also has a flat note or two . . . . just for realism, no doubt . .

There's no chicken or the egg theory. Of course acoustics came first and there's nothing better if the piano is a quality, tuned instrument and located in a place that doesn't promote inhibition.

If I had space and money I'd love to own a Steinway L or B besides my AG. I think I would still play my AG when I woodsheading. I seem to be more focused when doing repetitive concepts.

I love to be able to just play on the grand.

how does pianoteq + a weighted keyboard + quality speakers sound compared to a grand piano?

But take into account that I didn't say acoustics sounded better, just more "complex". And that holds true for almost any decent piano.

Not too good. How does Earth as a planet compare to Venus? I'd say they're worlds apart.

Letting the timbre questions apart (some people says it doesn't sound like a real piano), it has been hypothesized in this forum that the sound dispersion pattern of a speaker is not the same than what a piano has. It's probably true for any sound with some complexity. Has anybody noticed how any non-amplified music that you ear in person sounds different to a recorded one?

I think that's the reason why recent digital instruments pay so much attention to amplification and speakers system and resonators (I'm thinking about AvantGrands specifically, although Roland and kawai also seems to be moving in this direction).

That's definitely an important line of inquiry, although I still think they need to work even harder on putting full length samples with no looping/stretching, and also work harder on the resonance emulation of real pianos. It doesn't matter what they do with sound systems if they don't improve these basic areas. It's the biggest thing making DPs feel relatively dead compared to an acoustic. I have no doubt it can be done, probably through modelling eventually. I'm sure that if there was an all out effort of NASA proportions, they could eventually produce a DP that could match a large concert grand. It's just that the improvements are so slow and incremental. It's taking forever to get where I want DPs to be. I'd love to be able to buy a DP that can do it all - I'd give up my acoustic if I could. But we are SOOO far away from that. When I was a kid, there were all these promises and speculations about DPs. Now, 25 years later, I'm starting to think I'm going to die before a really great DP is made!

This is true.When I bought my Clav four years ago I didn't like the sound. I went through several iterations of external sound system, yielding slight improvement, but never satisfying.

This has already been done.But I think sampling holds more promise than modeling.

This, too, is true.But the market is successful even with the current crop of crap. If people buy them and the makers generate profit, they'll continue producing much of the same.

Yes ... very far away. But I think the best samplers have reached a point that the tone generator is no longer the red-line limiting factor. Now the sound systems need improvement.

When I was a kid there were no digital pianos, nor synthesizers, nor any electronic instruments (save for the exotic Theremin, curious but useless). So there were no promises made and no expectations shattered.

You will! And so will I.

That's because you're a pair of cynical old farts! Rejoice, rejoice! NAMM is nearly here. Some nifty new DP is going to blow us all away. If not this year then maybe next. Or the one after that. Probably.

For those who are bitching about the sound, just use a software piano from your laptop plugged into your digital piano by USB. You can have any kind of sound you want.

If you are too cheap and expect a $1000 digital piano to sound like a $100,000 grand piano then are you being unrealistic. Compare a $100,000 grand piano to a $100,000 digital piano and then you can talk.

The sad thing is, I'm not even 40 yet, and I still think I'm going to die before a really great DP is made!

This comment is made time and time again, but it really is a load of bollocks. The whole dollar for dollar comparison is used to make people feel good about their DP. But there is no $100,000 digital piano. And I would say even a $15k acoustic smokes any DP out there. Saying that DPs offer value for money is a totally different argument. They probably do - they are versatile, portable and have lots of features, but this doesn't excuse them from being nowhere near what they claim to be - a real competitor to a decent acoustic piano. In fact, if you prize the playing experience of a good acoustic, a DP doesn't represent good value for money because you won't get the experience you want and need. For acoustic owners, the money you pay is worth it - so this value comparison, and supposed advantage of DPs in this area, breaks down right there.

So let's dispense with the excuse making and talk about them in real terms of playing experience - rather than blurring the comparison with talk of dollars. Is this thread about comparing the two instruments, or comparing our finances?

In the short to medium term, no doubt. I can't help thinking that modelling should theoretically yield better results eventually - especially in terms of integrating the primary notes with the resonance and pedal effects. Of course, this will all happen after we die...


Yes, and the fact that so many noobs are so happy to have a functional piano-like object that they sing from the rooftops about how great their DP is means manufacturers have a low incentive to make things better at a faster rate. I guess that justifies the existence of crappy DPs, but it certainly doesn't settle the argument of how and why DPs fall so far short of acoustics. The problem is that most of the people extolling the virtues of DPs are not experienced enough to even know why acoustics are still so far ahead.



If only we could get some of these samplers in our DPs. I guess it all needs to match up together. No point having one component miles ahead of any other. On the other hand, that might explain the way current DPs are made - everything being adequate but mediocre.